Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Article One of the United States Constitution/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article One of the United States Constitution[edit]

Self-nomination. I think that some might object to the article's overall length. The length, however, is caused by the inclusion of the text, which was desired when the First Amendment article was nominated. The remainder of the article, I think, is of appropriate length (about 30K). -- Emsworth 18:29, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • The length is no problem. Neutral for now, leaning towards object. These are really good legal histories--they would make fantastic sections of an eventual article. What's missing is some kind of overview approach, something that speaks to the general relevance of Article 1 beyond the narrowly legal. Am I being clear? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You are indeed being clear. I presume you want an expansion of the material within the first paragraph of the lead section? -- Emsworth 18:52, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, the lead is quite good--concise, yet informative. Maybe another section detailing the broader impact, or just material within the other sections explaining what effects this has had on the country as a whole. Hope this helps, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I've added material in certain sections: Congress, House of Representatives, Senate, Elections and Meetings, Bills. Feel free to inform me if more, in your opinion, is necessary. -- Emsworth 20:32, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
          • Much better--those were really interesting. Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:43, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. TOC is too long (see Wikipedia:What is a featured article), and article is too long (see Wikipedia:Page size) because of the inclusion of the source text (see Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources). The source text should be moved to Wikisource and a link provided. That should take care of all the issues I have with the article (which is rather good). --mav 21:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Done -- Emsworth 22:13, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • I withdraw my objection and change to accept. --mav 03:13, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -Sean Curtin 07:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. One image is not credited, and two of the other images are only believed to be in the public domain. Jeronimo 09:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The issue of the Senate picture is addressed above in the Separation of powers section. The others are not just "believed" to be PD according to the summaries, which simply give the source and state "public domain." -- Emsworth 13:05, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, but if you follow these links ([1] and [2]), it reads "Images of American Political History. All images are believed to be in the public domain.". There is no source stated, and no evidence that these images are really in the PD. As for the Senate image: see my comment at Separation of Powers. Jeronimo 11:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Lovely! Support, pending confirmation of status of Senate picture. +sj+ 05:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)